Update on management of stink bugs Thomas Turini University of California Cooperative Extension Vegetable Crops Advisor Fresno County
Feeding injury and damage
Stink Bug Species Reported in CA Consperse stink bug: Euschistus conspersus Red shouldered stink bug: Thyanta pallidovirens Say's stink bug complex: Chlorochroa sayi and Chlorochroa uhleri Southern green stink bug: Nezara viridula
Consperse stink bug: Euschistus conspersus
Stink Bugs Recently Reported in California Halyomorpha halys Brown marmorated Euschistus servus Brown stink bug Slide adapted from Goodell 2014
Stink Bugs Associated with Fresno Co. Tomatoes from 2013-2016 were Consperse Photos by E. Hannon, Fresno County Ag Commissioner s Entomologist, 2014
Stink Bug Research (2013-2016) Seasonal Population Development Pheromone trap evaluation Insecticide program comparison
Stink Bug Research Seasonal Population Development Pheromone trap evaluation Insecticide program comparison
Consperse Stink Bug Seasonal Population Development Overwintering: diapause in protected area Early- to mid-spring: movement from overwintering site and population development on weeds Late Spring and Summer: Greatest feeding and reproduction
Overwintering Site : Early Nov 2014
Consperse Stink Bug Overwinter under Leaf Litter of permanent Crop Leaf litter was removed from under the citrus trees with a rake and inspected for stink bug from 4 to 20 Nov 2014.
Consperse Stink Bug Overwinter under Leaf Litter of permanent Crop Leaf litter was removed from under the citrus trees with a rake and inspected for stink bug from 4 to 20 Nov 2014.
Overwintering site identified Tomatoes harvested in mid-oct 2014 Fallow field 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 2 1 0 6 0 10 16 7 0 12 0 2 4 1 0 18 1 1 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 30 Oranges 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 Mandarins N
Consperse Stink Bug Seasonal Population Development Overwintering: diapause in protected area Early- to mid-spring: movement from overwintering site and population development on weeds Late Spring and Summer: Greatest feeding and reproduction
1-Feb 3-Mar 2-Apr 2-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 20-Feb 21-Mar 20-Apr 20-May 19-Jun Detection of Consperse Stink Bug in High Risk Areas, 2015-16 2014 trap captures in late Mar 2015 trap captures in early Mar 2016 first detection was on black mustard on 18 Mar 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2014 2015 North Central South sb 1 trap sb 1 crops sb 2 trap sb 2 crops sb 3 trap sb 3 crops sb 4 trap sb 4 crops sb 5 trap
Plants that Support Consperse Stink Bug Crop Hosts Small grains Alfalfa Broccoli Weed Hosts Preferred hosts Mullein Mustard Dock Possible hosts milkweed, mallow, bindweed, thistles, vetch, velvetgrass, beardgrass,
Plants that Support Consperse Stink Bug Crop Hosts Small grains Alfalfa Broccoli Weed Hosts Preferred hosts Mullein Mustard Dock Possible hosts milkweed, mallow, bindweed, thistles, vetch, velvetgrass, beardgrass,
Stink Bug Research Seasonal Population Development Pheromone trap evaluation Insecticide program comparison
Pheromone baited traps aid in early detection. Comparison in Tomatoes: Live insect trap Sterling International, Inc. with AlphaScents Consperse stink bug lure Plant Shake method with 18 x 12 in (45 x 30 cm) tray
31-May 30-Jun 30-Jul 29-Aug 5-Jun 5-Jul 4-Aug 3-Sep 3-Oct Consperse stink bug captures in traps & on tomatoes at UC WSREC, 2014-16 2014 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 trap plant shake 2015 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 trap plant shake 2016: Detection of stinkbugs in tomatoes prior to capture in trap.
Developmental Rates of Consperse Stink Bug are Know and Degree Day Models are Available 53.6 F Developmental Threshold Egg development 150 DD >54 1 st -3 rd instar (small nymph) 408 DD >54 4 th 5 th instar (large nymph 386 DD >54 Adult to Egg Laying* 275 DD >54 Total 1219 DD >54
Calculations Are Possible to Predict the Presence of Nymphs from Eggs Laid at First Capture http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/calludt.cgi/dd MODEL?MODEL=CSB&CROP=tomatoes
Monthly DD >54 Accumulation FIVE_PTS.A (CIMIS #2, Five Points/WSFS USDA) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Jan 64 30 106 46 29 Feb 83 62 116 159 84 Mar 144 230 227 309 174 Apr 260 338 333 301 264 May 473 463 544 407 435 June 585 654 643 703 524 July 785 824 839 773 735 Aug 838 733 787 770 729 Sept 693 560 664 640 584 Oct 385 310 441 452 366 Nov 154 155 149 93 122 Dec 41 49 55 36 13 Annual Accumulation year http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/calludt.cgi/ddmodel?model=csb&crop=tomatoes DD.54 o 2012 4505 2013 4408 2014 4904 2015 4689 2016 4059 Modified from Goodell, Dec 2014
Stink Bug Research Seasonal Population Development Pheromone trap evaluation Insecticide program comparison
Not all pesticides mentioned in this presentation are currently registered in tomatoes. Carefully read all current labels before writing a pesticide recommendation
Insecticides with Activity against Stink Bug IRAC # Trade name Common Name > 80% control (adults and nymphs) 3A Baythroid beta cyfluthrin 3A Ambush, Pounce and others permethrin 3A+4A Warrior II + Actara lambda-cyhalothrin + thiamethoxam 3A Brigade, Bifenture, Capture, and bifenthrin others 1B Dimethoate dimethoate 4A Venom dinotefuron > 60% control (adults and nymphs) 3A+4A Leverage beta-cyfluthrin + imidacloprid 3A Warrior II Lambda-cyhalothrin 4A Actara thiamethoxam 4A Belay clothianidin 1A Lannate methomyl < 50% control of adults and > 80% control of nymphs 3A Hero, Mustang Max S-cypermethrin Modified from Zalom
Insecticide Trials 2014-16 Location : West Side Research and Extension Center Fresno County Plot size : single 60 inch bed x 75 ft Untreated buffer between each treated row Experimental design : 4 Replication Randomized Complete Block Plant Dates: 5/21/2014, 5/15/2015, 5/24/2016 Variety: H5608 Application details: CO 2 -powered backpack sprayer 50 gallons per acre 35 psi 3 Teejet 8004 EVS 19-in spacing 8 and 29 Aug 2014 18, 28 Jul, and 18 Aug 2015 25 Aug and 8 Sep 2016
Insecticide Trial Evaluations 2014-16 At harvest: Harvest: 20 ft (6 m) weigh all fruit Hand sort of 25 to 35 lbs (13.6 to 18.9 kg) of fruit by quality (red, green, sunburn, rot & stink bug damage) Lab analysis of 50 red fruit at Processing Tomato Advisory Board (PTAB) In-season: Three evaluations of fruit damage and stink bug counts of 4 feet under one side of canopy.
Insecticides Selected for 2014 Trials IRAC #* Trade name Common name 1A Lannate methomyl 1B Dibrom 8E naled 1B Dimethoate dimethoate 1B Thionex endosulfan 3A Danitol fenpopathrin 3A Warrior II lambda-cyhalothrin 3A + 4A Endigo ZCX lambda-cyhalothrin + thiamethoxam 3A + 4A Leverage imidicloprid + beta-cyfluthrin 3A + 28 Voliam Xpress lambda-cyhalothrin + chlorantraniliprole 4A Belay clothianidin 4A Venom dinotefuran 21A Torac tolfenpyrad 28 Coragen chlorantraniliprole * IRAC# mode of action as assigned by the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee
Influence of Insecticide Treatments on Stink Bug Damage, 2014 Untreated Dimethoate 1 pt Dibrom 8E 1.0 pts Endigo ZCX 4.5 fl oz Dibrom 8E 1.0 pts trap1 Lannate SP 1 lb Asana 9.6 fl oz Warrior II 1.92 oz Torac 21.0 fl oz Endigo CX 4.5 fl oz Belay 4 oz + Warrior II 1.92 oz Danitol 10.67 oz Leverage 2.7 3.75 oz Thionex 1 1/3 qts Leverage 2.7 3.75 oz trap Venom 70 SG 4 oz LSD 0.05 = 12.357 0 10 20 30 Stink bug damaged fruit (%)
Insecticides Selected for 2015 Trials IRAC #* Trade name Common name 1B Dimethoate dimethoate 3A Danitol fenpopathrin 3A Warrior II lambda-cyhalothrin 3A Danitol fenpropathrin 3A + 4A Endigo ZCX lambda-cyhalothrin + thiamethoxam 3A + 4A Leverage imidicloprid + beta-cyfluthrin 4A Belay clothianidin 4A Venom dinotefuran 4C Sequoia sulfoxaflor 4D Silvanto flupyradifurone 7C Knack pyriproxyfen 9C Beleaf flonicamid 15 Rimon novaluron 21A Torac tolfenpyrad 28 Exirel chlorantraniliprole * IRAC# mode of action as assigned by the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee
Influence of Insecticide Treatments on Stink Bug Damage, 2015 Untreated Venom 70 SG 4 oz Torac 21.0 fl oz Belay 4 oz + Beleaf 50SG 4.28 fl oz Exirel 20.5 fl oz Silvanto 14 fl oz Leverage 2.7 3.75 oz Dimethoate 4EL 1.0 pts + Leverage 2.7 3.75 fl oz Sequoia 4.5 fl oz Beleaf 50SG 4.28 fl oz Endigo CX 4.5 fl oz Danitol 10.67 oz + Knack 8.0 fl oz Warrior II 1.92 oz + Rimon 0.83EC 12.0 fl oz Warrior II 1.92 fl oz Warrior II 1.92 oz + Beleaf 50SG 2.8 fl oz 0 20 40 60 Stink bug damaged fruit (%)
Insecticides Selected for, 2016 IRAC #* Trade name Common name 1B Dimethoate dimethoate 3A Danitol fenpopathrin 3A Warrior II lambda-cyhalothrin 3A Danitol fenpropathrin 3A + 4A Brigadier bifenthrin + imidicloprid 3A + 4A Endigo ZCX lambda-cyhalothrin + thiamethoxam 3A + 4A Leverage beta-cyfluthrin + imidicloprid 4A Belay clothianidin 4A Venom dinotefuran 4C Sequoia sulfoxaflor 4D Silvanto flupyradifurone 7C Knack pyriproxyfen 9C Beleaf flonicamid 15 Rimon novaluron 21A Torac tolfenpyrad 28 Exirel chlorantraniliprole * IRAC# mode of action as assigned by the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee
Influence of Insecticide Treatments on Stink Bug Damage, 2016 Untreated Leverage 2.7 3.75 oz Exirel 20.5 fl oz Silvanto 14 fl oz Belay 4 oz + Beleaf 50SG 4.28 fl oz Warrior II 1.92 oz + Beleaf 50SG 4.28 fl oz Danitol 10.67 oz + Belay 4 oz Torac 21.0 fl oz Endigo ZC 4.5 fl oz Venom 70 SG 4 oz Warrior II 1.92 oz + Rimon 0.83EC 12.0 fl oz Sequoia 4.5 fl oz + Warrior II 1.92 fl oz Dimethoate 4EL 1.0 pts + Brigadier 9.85 fl oz Warrior II 1.92 fl oz Warrior II 1.92 oz + Brigadier 9.85 fl oz + Beleaf LSD 0.05 = 9.458 0 10 20 30 40 Stink bug damaged fruit (%)
Material Performance Overview Warrior II and Endigo provided a level of control over all three seasons Venom performed well 2/3 years Leverage 1/3 years Brigadier provided control applied with dimethoate, but was only tested one year
Comparison of Three Sprayers, 2016 Berm blower sprayer: 40 gallons per acre Standard conventional sprayer 40 gallons per acre 50 psi Three Teejet 8003VS nozzles Application: Date: 31 Aug Tank Mix: Warrior II 1.92 fl oz + Brigadier 9.85 fl oz + Beleaf 50SG 4.28 oz Bed drench sprayer 200 gpa Untreated Control CONDITIONS AT EXPERIMENTAL SITE Location: West Side Research and Extension Center Plot size : three 60 inch bed x 130 ft Experimental design : Five Replication Randomized Complete Block Plant Date: 24 May 2016 Variety: H5608
Sprayer Comparison Evaluations 2016 Placed into sprayed area immediately before treating on the soil surface at 3 to 4 inches above the soil surface and at 10 to 12 inches above the soil surface Water sensitive paper was used for determination of canopy penetration and coverage
Sprayer Comparison Evaluations 2016 At harvest: Harvest: 20 ft (6 m) weigh all fruit Hand sort of 25 to 35 lbs (13.6 to 18.9 kg) of fruit by quality (red, green, sunburn, rot & stink bug damage) Lab analysis of 50 red fruit at Processing Tomato Advisory Board (PTAB) In-season: On 2 Sep, three evaluations of fruit damage and stink bug counts of 4 feet under one side of canopy.
Berm Blower Sprayer (CPS)
Bed Drench Sprayer (UCCE, Kern Joe Nunez) Under the conditions of this study, the plates designed that had successfully lifted the canopies at earlier stages of crop development would drag plants. Likely due to a heavy fruit load and well developed vines. This application was not completed.
Water Sensitive Cards Conventional standard @ 40 gpa Berm Blower Sprayer @ 40 gpa Berm Blower Sprayer @ 200 gpa not replicated
Coverage Comparison (3 replications) Treatment Upper Middle Ground Average Standard 2.75 0.82 5.00 2.86 Berm blower 3.43 4.58 7.83 5.28 Probability 0.3753 0.2540 0.1326 0.2317 Rated on a scale of 0-10 based on percentage of card that was darkened. The two cards at the upper and those in the middle were averaged before analysis.
Coverage Comparison (3 replications) Treatment Gross yield (tons/ acre) Red (%) Green (%) Sun burn (%) Rot (%) Stink bug (%) Standard 52.867 38.26 9.95 3.16 17.80 30.86 Berm blower 50.501 51.24 7.73 4.04 15.01 21.97 Untreated 52.029 31.22 8.61 2.68 19.26 38.24 LSD 0.05 NS 8.07 NS NS NS 10.92 CV (%) 12.19 14.84 43.92 59.14 23.53 24.66 Fruit quality is based on hand sort of 25-35 lbs fruit and percentage is calculated based on weight per category.
Summary Identify and minimize potential overwintering sites or hosts that favor this pest early-spring Detection at early stages of infestation Scout edges of the field for stink bugs and damage Pheromone baited traps can be helpful. Treatment with lambda-cyhalothrin-containing materials consistently reduced damage; Venom reduced damage 2 of 3 years tests. Based on first detection and degree day calculations, apply insecticides to target nymphs Maximize coverage deep in the canopy
Acknowledgements California Tomato Research Institute Daniel Delgado Joe Nunez Fresno Consultants and Growers Ron Avila (CPS) Jose Mandajano (CPS) Pete Goodell Frank Zalom Les Ehler UC WSREC staff
Questions Tom Turini UC Cooperative Extension, Fresno County taturini@ucanr.edu 559-375-3147
Stink bug efficacy, yield and quality 2014 Fruit quality (%) Treatment yield (t/a) reds greens sunburn rot stink bug Venom 70 SG 4 oz 39.24 60.83 12.44 10.01 9.99 6.72 Leverage 2.7 3.75 oz trap 40.82 73.46 5.31 4.25 9.52 7.47 Thionex 1 1/3 qts 45.80 74.35 6.54 4.34 5.33 9.41 Leverage 2.7 3.75 oz 40.84 55.88 10.09 9.83 13.86 10.34 Danitol 10.67 oz 37.40 66.04 9.84 4.92 8.49 10.71 Belay 4 oz + Warrior II 1.92 oz 41.80 69.46 5.76 5.36 7.36 12.05 Endigo CX 4.5 fl oz 37.22 59.62 15.77 4.45 7.29 12.87 Torac 21.0 fl oz 41.09 50.05 7.78 13.06 10.66 18.44 Warrior II 1.92 oz 37.00 60.67 8.72 5.73 6.41 18.48 Lannate SP 1 lb Asana 9.6 fl oz 47.52 58.43 14.55 2.46 6.00 18.56 Dibrom 8E 1.0 pts trap1 45.75 46.33 10.55 11.54 10.69 20.89 Endigo ZCX 4.5 fl oz 41.79 57.33 7.84 4.94 8.47 21.44 Dibrom 8E 1.0 pts 37.70 53.13 8.12 2.79 9.26 26.70 Dimethoate 1 pt 40.84 47.82 6.60 11.83 6.62 27.13 Untreated 38.91 52.84 7.02 7.46 7.30 25.38 LSD (P=0.05) s 8.440 15.935 7.305 8.425 6.346 12.357 CV (%) 14.33 18.89 56.04 85.95 52.37 52.64 Unless otherwise specified all applications were made on 8 and 29 Aug. Treatments followed by trap were applied on 18 Jul after 1 st capture. Assana was applied on 15 Aug in addition to the Lannate applications on 8 and 29 Aug, H5608 planted 21 May and harvested 15-17 Sep.
Influence of Insecticide Treatments on Yield and Quality, 2015 Fruit quality (%) z yield Sun stink Treatment x (t/a) w reds greens burn rot bug Warrior II 1.92 oz + Beleaf 50SG 2.8 fl oz 56.51 67.41 8.43 2.01 2.95 21.16 Warrior II 1.92 fl oz 51.11 64.59 6.23 3.41 3.45 22.33 Warrior II 1.92 oz + Rimon 0.83EC 12.0 fl oz 60.75 69.71 6.86 0.62 2.14 24.62 Danitol 10.67 oz + Knack 8.0 fl oz 54.01 66.15 5.67 1.85 1.25 25.08 Endigo CX 4.5 fl oz 53.91 60.57 6.94 1.54 3.85 27.10 Beleaf 50SG 4.28 fl oz 53.37 61.48 7.93 1.85 0.88 27.86 Sequoia 4.5 fl oz 59.68 61.94 5.00 1.53 3.40 28.13 Dimethoate 4EL 1.0 pts + Leverage 2.7 3.75 fl 53.80 62.96 5.69 1.67 1.82 31.65 oz Leverage 2.7 3.75 oz 53.22 57.88 4.83 2.33 2.31 32.64 Silvanto 14 fl oz 48.80 53.47 3.86 2.93 5.96 33.78 Exirel 20.5 fl oz 60.67 51.58 7.37 3.19 2.66 35.20 Belay 4 oz + Beleaf 50SG 4.28 fl oz 54.24 50.59 7.17 2.65 3.48 36.11 Torac 21.0 fl oz 54.42 55.85 5.51 2.40 1.34 36.74 Venom 70 SG 4 oz 53.62 49.44 6.10 2.10 2.99 39.38 Untreated 53.62 49.87 6.32 2.70 5.59 35.52 LSD (P=0.05) u 9.967 15.935 3.265 1.950 3.412 19.197 CV (%) 12.61 18.89 36.55 62.50 87.01 44.13
Influence of Insecticide Treatments on Yield and Quality, 2016 Fruit quality (%) z Treatment x yield (t/a) w reds greens Sun burn rot stink bug Warrior II 1.92 oz + Brigadier 9.85 fl oz + Beleaf 67.74 63.20 15.32 0.74 8.87 11.87 50SG 4.28 fl oz Warrior II 1.92 fl oz 65.48 54.46 14.75 1.67 12.14 16.98 Dimethoate 4EL 1.0 pts + Brigadier 9.85 fl oz 66.08 55.80 15.19 0.00 11.24 17.76 Sequoia 4.5 fl oz + Warrior II 1.92 fl oz 62.28 54.85 12.23 1.16 13.19 18.57 Warrior II 1.92 oz + Rimon 0.83EC 12.0 fl oz 70.77 53.38 11.16 1.54 13.60 20.32 Venom 70 SG 4 oz 60.53 54.16 14.23 0.75 10.32 20.54 Endigo ZC 4.5 fl oz 64.98 51.39 15.76 1.49 9.88 21.48 Torac 21.0 fl oz 68.61 43.89 17.91 0.05 12.25 25.90 Danitol 10.67 oz + Belay 4 oz 68.83 43.79 14.36 0.87 14.66 26.31 Warrior II 1.92 oz + Beleaf 50SG 4.28 fl oz 58.15 45.29 15.54 0.43 11.75 26.99 Belay 4 oz + Beleaf 50SG 4.28 fl oz 67.80 43.59 11.57 0.83 13.82 30.18 Silvanto 14 fl oz 66.64 39.07 17.83 0.35 12.20 30.55 Exirel 20.5 fl oz 66.61 44.26 14.40 0.58 10.05 30.71 Leverage 2.7 3.75 oz 68.65 40.16 11.90 0.78 16.15 31.01 Untreated 63.37 42.84 16.24 1.28 8.09 31.55 LSD (P=0.05) u 6.63 12.96 NS t NS NS 9.458 CV (%) 7.07 18.89 39.00 127.3 41.23 27.57 H5608 processing tomato plants at UC West Side Research and Extension Center. Foliar applications were made with a backpack sprayer at 50 gpa. All applications were made on 25 Aug and 8 Sep.